Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network

Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile

Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Previous Posts

Powered by Blogger


Thursday, January 26, 2006

Survivors come second

Jewish historian Norman Finkelstein writes:

"In The Holocaust Industry I documented the World Jewish Congress's double shakedown of Swiss banks and Nazi holocaust victims. The mastermind of this plot was a repellent sewer rat named Rabbi Israel Singer who headed the World Jewish Congress. In the appendix to the second paperback edition of my book I stated that Singer won't be stopped 'unless he is finally put where he belongs, behind bars.' It seems that day might not be so far off. In the past year it has been reported that while denouncing the Swiss banks for using secrecy laws to deny Jews access to their Holocaust-era accounts, Singer himself opened up a secret Swiss bank account where he was squirreling away monies pilfered from the World Jewish Congress. Now it seems that the House of Hucksters is beset with yet new scandals."

Jewish newspaper, The Forward, explains:

"The World Jewish Congress is fighting to block publication in Switzerland of a series of magazine articles [by journalist Daniel Ganzfried] that reportedly will contain damaging new allegations about the organization's management and handling of funds.

"Ganzfried, the Swiss journalist, has been sharply critical of Jewish communal efforts to win back Holocaust-era assets, which have roiled Swiss Jews' relations with their neighbours. He said his upcoming articles will be aimed at documenting the shortcomings in that process."

Despite years of abuse, Finkelstein's initial thesis is being confirmed yet again. Leading Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg has supported Finkelstein's analysis of Jewish organisations' mismanagement and cynicism while trying to negotiate lost funds:

"When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining to forced labour. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."

The latest scandal merely confirms Finkelstein's allegations against one of the world's leading Zionist organisations. Their primary interest is not the Holocaust victims themselves, rather obtaining financial reward and spending the money as they see fit, either for themselves or on Zionist projects in Israel.


Blogger violet said...


I see you are reading and posting on your blog. Within the thread of the post about Austen Tayshus I have challenged you to a debate. Please read and respond in kind.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:32:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...


It's a shame Antony that you spout things like this (below) and yet refuse to publically debate an Australian Jew about his "beloved homeland". It appears you are twice a coward. Are you refusing to debate a conservative Zionist, academic Jew who has offered to debate you, as well as Austen Tayshus? How about standing up for what you believe in and standing by those words you wrote below?

And how about you officially rebuke the invitation rather than ignore it?

Australian Jews, generally speaking, are incapable of hearing the true reality of their beloved homeland and its barbaric actions

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:33:00 pm  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

Perhaps Loewenstein, like the rest of us, is hoping that if ignored you will go away...

To self: Shite, I am providing the very attention this fool seeks. Gah.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:35:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:42:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Like all those who spout without much knowledge, Loewstein is hoping few notice while he refuses the debate.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:39:00 am  
Blogger Progressive Atheist said...

I've never met anyone as cool as Antony in the face of so much spit and spite.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:47:00 am  
Blogger violet said...

progressive atheist

Being cool is ignoring a legitimate challenge to a debate?

Praytell, where is the "spit" and "spite" in this invitation to a debate? Please go back and examine the last two posts and point it out.

Or are you once again claiming I said things I didn't?

Your imagination is a problem.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:00:00 am  
Blogger Mannie said...

"Like all those who spout without much knowledge, Loewstein is hoping few notice while he refuses the debate."
And this comment, of course, furthers debate?
Infantilism strikes again!
Try reading a few books by people such as Finkelstein and maybe - just maybe - you will actually learn something - if you are actually capable!

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:14:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

There is no debate from that corner, so it is just a statement of fact, not an item up for debate.

As for this latest scandal, it just shows the day to day problems that occur when large sums of money pass through the hands of every day people.

While it seems to be of a greater moral concern, it is no more than what has occured in the rape of the arabs by every oil rich royal family, the rape of the indigenous peoples of Americas, Auistrailia, New Zealand, Hawaii, and the rape of Kuwait and Iraq by Saddam.

The lure of money and power and sex is to much for most, including those we feel are above that sort of thing.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:02:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...


Would you prefer Ant debate a Jewsih scholar or a thug like Gutman?

Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:29:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

I think we'd all prefer ant to crawl in a hole and die. But comparing wishes to addamo, you'll wind up with more addamo.

Depends on what you define as a Jewish Scholars.

Some fools consider fink and chom as such.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:42:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Who woudl you consider one Ibraham? Allan Dershbag?

Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:25:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

_01, I'd perfer one who doesn't use any failing of any particular Jew as a greenlight to post things in an antisemitic manner as is the format of Loewaddamo, Finkaddamo, and Chomaddamo.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:39:00 am  
Blogger David said...

In EVERY instance the US military CID investigative proceedure/courtmartial proceedure were already underway when crimes committed by US personnel were brought to the attention of the media. This is true of Abu Ghraib and the allegations about the abuse of prisoners at Baghram airbase in Afghanistan.

In fact, when Amnesty went public last year with accusations of US military transgressions, they did so on the basis of investigative/court martial records that they had obtained under FOI.

So in other words, Amnesty's big 'scoop' was getting a list of investigations/prosecutions that were already underway.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:20:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...


I would appreciate a link to this if pssible.

The assertion that the Abu Graib procedure were already under way is errorenous seeing as it is continuing to this day. Much of it being perfomred by security contractors who are not bound by the Geneva Conventions.

What you also fail to mentino is that Amnesty went public long after the informatino had gone public. Wasn't the Abu Graib story alreay old by then? It had broken in 2004 as I recall.

In fact, it seem to me that Amnesty has consistently been one step behind the media. That's nto to say they are not doign thir job, but that their job has been to very what has already been reported.

Can you verify thet the court proceedings in any of htese cases preceeded the news item hitting the stands?

Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:32:00 am  
Blogger David said...


I mispoke. It wasn't Amnesty trumpting their great scoop, it was the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU. Given the similar philosophical outlook of those two groups, I suppose the error was minor.

Here is the URL of a document obtained by the ACLU after a FOIA request that was the source of one of its highly trumpted 'breaking stories':

The ACLU's 'scoop' is simply a report on prexisting CID/MP investigations into allegations that US troops maltreated prisoners an detainees.

Or in other words, the ACLU has publicized a document that demonstrates how seriously the US military takes allegations of abuse. When American personnel volate the laws of war, they are prosecuted.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:59:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Thanks for that.

Looking through the records, all of these items seem to fall within the definition that Gonzales came up with for what constitutes toture (i.e anything short of organ failure or death) as opopsed inhumane and degrading treatment).

The Bush administration had already apprived the use of torure ealier in 2004.

So what we have here is that no crimes were commited because the crimes were sanctioned and legalised.

The ACLU won a case against the Pentagon last year to force tehm to handover the second batch of evidence (photos and videos) whcih are descrbes as much worse than the series released to the public. The Pentagon is arguing that releasing this to the public will be dangerous to miltary personel.

Seems liek the JAG boys were either sleeping on the job, or that under the new definition of torture, no crimes were actually committed.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:12:00 am  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:33:00 am  
Blogger FOAC said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:02:00 pm  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

OMFG FOAC. That looks deletable.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:08:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

I agree. There is no place for that language here FOAC. PLease delete that message.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:26:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

"attention whore" was not deletable? I guess it matters who says it. Selective censorship, as in selective morality.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:03:00 pm  
Blogger lucas formosa said...

"I think we'd all prefer ant to crawl in a hole and die".

oh, and what sort of morality does that demonstrate?...typical of the vindictive, gutter-level poison spewed by a certain clique on this site who are more inclined to debase than debate...lovely stuff indeed.

yes, yes, i know, i'm just another anti-semite...but, aren't the Arab peoples of semitic origin too?...seems the term 'anti-semite' gets thrown about like so much meaningless confetti around here.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:27:00 pm  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:54:00 pm  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

Ibrahamav, I thought it was legitimate geek-speak (courtesy of Fark). Happy to delete since you are offended. Oh, and I thought FOAC's post was mildly funny, kind of like an unexpected circuit-breaker for the usual morose (and occasionally shrill) commenting here. But that's just me.

Here's my earlier response to Violet, sans insult.

"Violet, your comments - recorded here across the past couple of months at least - show your challenge to a debate to be anything but "legitimate". Loewenstein is right to ignore you. If only the rest of us could, too."

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:56:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

What sort of morality, lucas? I didn't advocate killing, hurting, censoring, or anything else. My preference was requested. I prefer that he crawl back in his hole and die. It is not a morality statement.

For your edification, antisemitism distinctly refers to hatred of Jews. It was coined by a German social scientist to describe this hatred. There is no such thing as semitism.

It is interesting to note that normally only antisemites use that canard in addition to the 'used too often' hollow complaint.

Friday, January 27, 2006 12:41:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

drunk, I was not offended. I was commenting on the double standards of our host, who appears to judge things based on his racist superiority belief's.

Friday, January 27, 2006 12:48:00 am  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Ibrahamav said...
"For your edification, antisemitism distinctly refers to hatred of Jews. It was coined by a German social scientist to describe this hatred. There is no such thing as semitism."

...that was before it was discovered that Arabs were in fact Semites too, wasn't it?

Friday, January 27, 2006 3:45:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...


Especially as this is the definition of Semitism: a Hebrew or Aramaic vocabulary or grammatical construction brought into the Greek text. Also called Hebraism or Aramaism.

So the word, semitism, has nothing much to do with the definition of antisemitism.

But if your intent is to spread addamo....

Friday, January 27, 2006 3:57:00 am  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Actually, I just checked my Oxford English Dictionary on this. We have the following:

Semitism: 1851.
1. The attributes characteristic of the Semitic peoples. Also the fact of being Semitic.
b. Jewish ideas or influence in politics and society. 1885.
2. A Semitic word or idiom. 1886.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the principle Semitic languages are/were: Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian, Ethiopian and Hebrew.

This is just for trivia purposes: you wouldn't happen to know why Arabic and Hebrew is written from right-to-left would you?

Friday, January 27, 2006 3:24:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home